A Proposed Labor system for the New South

[Wiregrass Willie]

This 1873 Milledgeville Ga newspaper article is one of the most
fascinating Southern historical items I have ever read.

http://milledgeville.galileo.usg.edu/milledgeville/view?docId=news/uar1873/uar1873-0154.xml

It is entitled ---

-------------------------------------------
New System of Land and Labor for the South

William McKinley of Milledgeville Ga
------------------------------------------

The year is 1873 in Georgia. This guy William McKinley is a planter
and former slave owner. He is speaking to the Georgia State
Agricultural Society at the University of Georgia. The Civil war has
set all the slaves free and Mr McKinley is suggesting a way that
planters can return to the good old days of high profits and stability

In his opinion, the free black people are not any better employees
than the free whites are. What to do ? Apparently he has given
some thought to share cropping. But that does not satisfy him. He
has a better idea. Instead of year to year share-cropping contracts --
why not tie the laborer into long term obligations ? Like 10 or 20
years.

Mr McKinley looks to the past for a solution. Why not return to
Feudalism ? He proposes a solution.

It is a long article. Four full columns on the front page and one
and a half on page four. You have to have a djvu plug-in to read it.
(You can download it at the site)

The whole article is fascinating,. But the best part starts about
half way down the fourth column under "How to settle the negroes".
If you will start there and continue to page four you will see how the
mentality of the planter class use to work.

I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)


Signed -- (Just plain) Willie

PS -- you can adjust the text size by using the plus sign on the menu
bar.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
> subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)

I'll have to put you off on that, WW; I'm on Linux right now, and I
can't seem to find the right plug-in for my browser to read that
file. I'll do a bit of searching for one.

I will say this. The landlords constantly schemed and day-dreamed
about some means of getting more control over the labor force in the
absence of slavery. They dreamed of importing workers from poor
countries. It was even tried. There are South Asian Indians in some of
the Caribbean countries, and a few Chinese in Mississippi.

Even in sharecropping they tried to get laws to give them greater
control over tenants, to make it harder for tenants to skip. A few
organizations like mines, and timber companies, tried to work with
convict labor, or to use debt-peonage--review the words of "Sixteen
Tons". And there were some planters who used convict labor.

Since they eventually got the blacks out of politics along with many of
they poor whites, they could get the legislature to write up whatever
they could agree on. Enforcement was the problem. Landlords undercut
each other in their quest for good tenants. They were constantly
whining about having to compete with each other.

hl

[slotrot]

I couldn't read it either, Hugh. Just kept getting a blank page. Maybe they really had nothing important to say ;-)

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
>> subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)
>
> I'll have to put you off on that, WW;

I found the plug-in and gave it a quick look. Hit me with a question,
if I omit something you want me to talk about.

Some observations.

McKinley is talking about cotton growing. I think this document
reflects a period before the familiar hierarchy of tenant farming had
shaken down into a customary arrangement: cash tenant, share tenant,
sharecropper. If I am right, the situation is in flux, and McKinley
wants to affect the discussion. He is looking fore a stable system of
tenancy. He reflects the perspective of a large landowner.

He wants to preserve black labor, doesn't want white labor. He respects
blacks as laborers. He thinks the problem is unsettled conditions. He
views blacks from a patriarchal perspective.

This is Georgia, so there a historical record of the time before
African slavery. McKinley considers the pre-slavery period to have been
an economic failure. White racists have sometimes seen it as a golden
age before "they" arrived.

McKinley has a good education. He has been searching history for
instances of agricultural tenancy. He likes copyhold tenure.

It has been 40 years since I studied English social history, and I've
never refreshed this learning by teaching the material; although I
recall the term copyhold tenure, I don't know much about it. But he does
give an example of a copyhold agreement. I note that McKinley wants to
put the judgment of conflicts among the affected persons to be entirely
in the hands of the landlords. Why am I not surprised? LOL.

I notice that he wants long leases. I can't tell from this document
what is the existing situation. Did I miss something? Are the annual
contracts he refers to labor contracts, or are they landlord-tenant
contracts? Could you tell, WW?

I was amazed at his mention of widespread arms possession among blacks.
I have long believed that a greater ownership of six-shooters or
repeating rifles by the blacks would have shut down the successors of
the KKK. During the great Atlanta riot (white-on-black) of 1906, WEB
DuBois sat on his porch with his shotgun and was not bothered IIRC. In
fact, I wonder if disfranchisement laws of the 1890s and after might not
have been in part a reaction to greater weapons possession by blacks.

I note that the sample contract calls for quarterly rent payments. I
think this would have been impractical in the cotton culture, unless he
is thinking of the tenants doing some cash work along the year.

My main thought is Wow! What a basis for a history seminar! Start with
five or six students, read the document, identify everything one needs
to know to understand it fully, and have the students write a series of
papers and notes laying out that knowledge.


Very interesting, WW. I always recomment Gavin Wright, Old South, New
South for light on these subject.

hl

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

>
> I couldn't read it either, Hugh. Just kept getting a blank page.
> Maybe they really had nothing important to say ;-)

You need a special plug-in for your browser. Take a look at this page:

http://milledgeville.galileo.usg.edu/milledgeville/search

After I installed the plugin, the newspaper came up in small print; then
a little zooming in made it legible.

What you look for is the DjVu plugin. A link on the page promises to
install it for Windows users.

hl

[slotrot]

Thanks Hugh. Works fine now.

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> Thanks Hugh. Works fine now.

Glad to help, Bob. Georgia has a very nice set of online tools.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:17:56 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
>>> subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)
>>
>> I'll have to put you off on that, WW;
>
>
>I found the plug-in and gave it a quick look. Hit me with a question,
>if I omit something you want me to talk about.
>
>Some observations.
>
>McKinley is talking about cotton growing. I think this document
>reflects a period before the familiar hierarchy of tenant farming had
>shaken down into a customary arrangement: cash tenant, share tenant,
>sharecropper. If I am right, the situation is in flux, and McKinley
>wants to affect the discussion. He is looking fore a stable system of
>tenancy. He reflects the perspective of a large landowner.
>
>He wants to preserve black labor, doesn't want white labor. He respects
>blacks as laborers. He thinks the problem is unsettled conditions. He
>views blacks from a patriarchal perspective.
>
>This is Georgia, so there a historical record of the time before
>African slavery. McKinley considers the pre-slavery period to have been
>an economic failure. White racists have sometimes seen it as a golden
>age before "they" arrived.

I've often wondered if the plantation system could have been
successful in America without slavery. We know that whites could
have done the work -- contrary to what the planters insisted. (they
did it after 1865) But would they have been at the beck-and-call of
the planter ? I doubt it. That's the part the old planters
wanted most of all. Subservience !

Glad you enjoyed it, Hugh. And I think you are right. It would
make and interesting basis for a history seminar.

To me it revealed something I've been suspecting for a few years.
That is that the Planters of the Old South would have given anything
to have been able to reinstate Feudalism in the South.

When the plantation system first started in VA in the early 1600s,
those planters not only wanted labor to get in their crops -- they
wanted to be Lords of the Manor. Unfortunately for them that system
had been abolished in England. So the only way they could have a
servile labor force - was to import slaves.

IMO, McKinley simply voiced what he and his cronies had been talking
about all his life.

When I read McKinleys thoughts, it was like --- "I was right !!" :-)

Let me add this thought. When the first planters imported slaves --
it had the effect of (unofficially) reinstating the Feudal system in
the South. The white labor class had no available jobs -- so they
also became peasants -- one step above the slave/villein. And they
never even noticed it.

Yes, Hugh. After these five years of reading Southern social history
-- I finally found an old planter advocating exactly what I've accused
them of all along. Advocating a return to Feudalism.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> I've often wondered if the plantation system could have been
> successful in America without slavery. We know that whites could
> have done the work -- contrary to what the planters insisted. (they
> did it after 1865)

It *was* successful without slavery. American slavery evolved in 17th
century Virginia from indentured servitude--at least that was the
historical account when last I studied it. The first Virginia servants
worked for a term of years and then were freed, unless they agreed to
another indenture. The three criticial steps that made it slavery were:

first, African servants by law were made servants for life;
second, conversion to Christianity did not free one;
third, the offspring of slaves were also enslaved.

These three steps were applied to the African people.

This was accomplished by a series of laws passed in Virginia during the
1600s.

> But would they have been at the beck-and-call of the planter ? I
> doubt it. That's the part the old planters wanted most of all.
> Subservience !

I would say that the subservience was a means to an end, the end being
getting richer.

> Let me add this thought. When the first planters imported slaves --
> it had the effect of (unofficially) reinstating the Feudal system in
> the South. The white labor class had no available jobs -- so they
> also became peasants -- one step above the slave/villein. And they
> never even noticed it.

Let me add a little complexity here. Landlords in 18th century England
didn't need slavery, because there was plenty of cheap labor. Their
problem was running off squatters who had no place to be. Slavery and
other forms of forced labor in the modern world come into play in
special situations. The United States and Russia are examples. How do
you get people to do field-work for little reward?

If land is abundant, as it was in America, you must force them.
Ditto Russia. But in heavily populated England there was plenty of
labor cheap. A copyhold tenant was actually relatively well off. He
operated on his own and paid rent. He probably employed day laborers,
who were the bottom of the rural social pyramid.

Let me argue a little with your "restore-feudalism" theory.

McKinley says nothing about restoring the middle ages. He is looking
for a way to make money growing cotton, using the locally available
people. Gang labor under slavery is out; he accepts that. So his
proposal is some form of tenantry. Provide small farms with a house in
exchange for rent, with secure leases for a period of time.

There is no reference to a hereditary nobility, no reference to military
service as a condition of land tenure.

My opinion is that you find this inequality repellent, and you impose on
the facts a "return to feudalism" interpretation. But it fits only if you
overlook important characteristics of feudalism.

It looks to me like agricultural capitalism.


hl

[Hugh Lawson]

I've been thinking about that court McKinley wanted for his land-tenure
proposal. It would be outside public law. It would cluster 10
plantations together.

It begins to look like a landlord's organization to deal with tenants
as a united body of landlords. I'm guessing that McKinley dreams of
accomplishing two important things:

1. escape supervision of his manorial court by government. Remember
this is reconstruction and the blacks haven't been disfranchised.
McKinley may have had recent experience with the Freedmen's Bureau, and
didn't like it.

2. get the landlords together in a sort of pool to prevent them
from competing for tenants. Here the proposed long leases begin to make
sense.

If you go back a read the passage on the court again, you can just
imagine that he's speaking these lines with a wink and a nod. The
audience will understand what he means. Or so I suggest.

But still, this is a transitional step toward sharecropping, I
suggest. McKinley has given up on trying to reconstitute gang labor
under close supervision, the hallmark of working conditions under
slavery. He is making the transition from "Slavelord to Landlord", a
phrase used by Gavin Wright to characterize the big change that occurred
after emancipation in the way the work was organized.

Again, I strongly suggest Gavin Wright's Old South, New South.

Many writers as they approach the South look for the specifications for
an indictment of "the South." Once they assemble facts that dramatize
the inequalities, and so on, their curiosity is satisfied. But Wright
is primarily interested in explaining how the economy worked, why it
worked that way, how it changed, and what caused it to change.

You can get it cheap, used, from Amazon.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:50:01 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

True he did not come out and demand Feudalism. But he did want to do
what the British had done to replace it.

My point is that the early planters (1600s) -- would have much
preferred it had they been able to have been Lords of the Manor in
Virginia rather than just large farmers. Had that been possible --
they would have been very satisfied with white labor. As long as
that labor was intensely servile and did as it was told.

Imagine some illegitimate great-grandson of a Lord coming to Virginia
and seeing that he could have 1,000 acres. Nobody in England
without a title had that much land. It would have been normal for
him to want to emulate his ancestor. I realize that I'm trying to
prove a certain mindset -- which is impossible.

It all comes down to why I think the Southern people had (have?) a
predisposition to defer to wealth and be (socially) subservient to
their rich neighbors. It had nothing to do with fear. But it
did have to do with a cutural proclivity left on them from their
tribal days on Britains border land.

But ... what the heck, Hugh. I find the subject very interesting.
And it's always nice to get your opinion an views on Southern history.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> It all comes down to why I think the Southern people had (have?) a
> predisposition to defer to wealth and be (socially) subservient to
> their rich neighbors.

Shouldn't it be shown that this predisposition actually exists?

HL

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:17:56 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>>> I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
>>> subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)
>>
>> I'll have to put you off on that, WW;

I tried it with Chrome, Internet Explorer and Firefox and none of them
could read it. Apparently you need some sort of Confederate plug-in
to view this. And I don't blame them. Wanting to return to feudalism
is so quintessentially Southern. Can you imagine this idea being
seriously disused in any other region of the country?

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:17:56 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [ snip ]
>>>
>>>> I recall Hugh Lawson once mentioned he had been interested in the
>>>> subject of sharecropping. I'd love to hear his opinion :-)
>>>
>>> I'll have to put you off on that, WW;
>
> I tried it with Chrome, Internet Explorer and Firefox and none of them
> could read it.

Look on this page for the needed DjVu plugin. You can install it right
from the page.

http://milledgeville.galileo.usg.edu/milledgeville/search

[snip ]

[Hugh Lawson]

As I said in another post, some people study the south in order to make
up an indictment of it. Once they have made up the indictment, their
curiosity about the south ceases.

This description seems to fit A.Lurker.

;-)

HL

[Joel Edge]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:59:27 -0500, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <hbnfa89rn202aq6lp...@4ax.com>):

> seriously disused in any other region of the country?O

It doesn't read on Safari either. Probably some of that obscure Windows crap.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:37:51 -0500, Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net>
wrote:

I read it on Opera. I wonder if some computer systems will fail to
activate the DJVU reader ?

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:12:25 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm still working on it. What amazes me is it seems nobody ever
noticed it. As I've posted before -- it's a trait I've noticed
since I was a teenager in the 1950s. I will hasten to add -- I
doubt if anybody below age 50 does it. Like everything else of the
Southern culture -- it was destroyed by TV.

What got me to thinking about it is this. Have you ever noticed that
the people of the South -- from about 1820 to about 1960s, always
voted against their own self-interest in elections for leadership ?

The most obvious being when they voted for secession.

Oh, well. I suppose I'm the only one who thinks that way :-)

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:47:36 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks a lot, Hugh. I'll see if I can pick up a copy of Gavin
Wright's book.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

Poor and middle class white Southerners still vote against their
self-interest in droves because their bigotry is important to them.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> What got me to thinking about it is this. Have you ever noticed that
> the people of the South -- from about 1820 to about 1960s, always
> voted against their own self-interest in elections for leadership ?

I don't decide the self-interest of other people. I take my ideas of
the interests of others from the propositions they favor. What they want
for me IS their interest. I often *wish* they would favor something
else, but I try not to say of another, "He is voting against his own
interests."

> The most obvious being when they voted for secession.

We've disagreed on this before. IMO the poor whites had a rational
stake in slavery, when you take into account their economic interests
and racist values.


--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


>>You can get it cheap, used, from Amazon.
>
> Thanks a lot, Hugh. I'll see if I can pick up a copy of Gavin
> Wright's book.

On another thread I cited a recent speech of Wright's. It's worth
listening to.



--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:27:30 -0500, Wiregrass Willie wrote
(in article <u13ia8d02529vd5d7...@4ax.com>):

My browser just points out that I need the plug-in. I don't feel I need to
read it that badly.

[Joel Edge]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:26:10 -0500, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <jf6ia8lrp1pm7sh4u...@4ax.com>):

They vote against what you perceive as their best interests. Because you
don't understand it, you call it bigotry.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:39:57 -0500, Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net>

A lot of people felt that way when TVs first came out. If it wasn't
on radio - they didn't need it :-)

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

[ snip ]

A.L.:

>> Poor and middle class white Southerners still vote against their
>> self-interest in droves because their bigotry is important to them.

JE:

> They vote against what you perceive as their best interests. Because you
> don't understand it, you call it bigotry.

Hugh: A.Lurker is not to be taken seriously.

--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:34:30 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Note Hugh jumping to the defense of Southern bigotry. Hugh's alleged
liberalism is not to be taken seriously.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

[snip]

> Note Hugh jumping to the defense of Southern bigotry. Hugh's alleged
> liberalism is not to be taken seriously.

Piffle.

--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:42:24 -0500, Wiregrass Willie wrote
(in article <jaoka855u2pj28l63...@4ax.com>):

Bad analogy. A better one would be people not bothering to buy an FM radio
and just deciding to stay with AM. That's not a good analogy either, now that
I think about it.
Kind of like having a CAD program that doesn't do schematic drawings with
tube symbols. If I need a symbol for a tube, I'll go find one.

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:18:27 -0500, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <7i4ma81ij98vtaqpo...@4ax.com>):

Hugh seems to be open minded. A rare trait in todays liberal/socialist.

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:13:12 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>[snip]
>> Note Hugh jumping to the defense of Southern bigotry. Hugh's alleged
>> liberalism is not to be taken seriously.
>
>Piffle.

Hugh, I really like your new nom de guerre, but apparently you were so
anxious to use it, you forgot to post anything above it!!

[MITO MINISTER]

On Nov 21, 3:26 am, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:13:12 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> >A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
> >[snip]
> >> Note Hugh jumping to the defense of Southern bigotry.  Hugh's alleged
> >> liberalism is not to be taken seriously.
>
> >Piffle.
>
> Hugh, I really like your new nom de guerre, but apparently you were so
> anxious to use it, you forgot to post anything above it!!

Hugh, have you ever read or taught Marx or Engels? They had something
to say about capitalism and feudalism. Any Bakunin? Trotsky? Lenin?
Mao? Maybe Rosa Luxembourg? Or are these thinkers/dictators/socialists/
idealists still banned in THE WHITE SOUTH?

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:40:24 -0500, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<94e9c2f0-373e-46eb...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

You're an embarrassment to morons.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Nov 21, 9:57 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:40:24 -0500, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <94e9c2f0-373e-46eb-9978-d8595070b...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

Afraid of reading?

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:17:12 -0500, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<63f77e10-c25d-4759...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>):

> On Nov 21, 9:57ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:40:24 -0500, MITO MINISTER wrote
>> (in article
>> <94e9c2f0-373e-46eb-9978-d8595070b...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 3:26ï¿œam, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:13:12 -0500, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>
>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>> Note Hugh jumping to the defense of Southern bigotry. ï¿œHugh's alleged

>>>>>> liberalism is not to be taken seriously.
>>
>>>>> Piffle.
>>
>>>> Hugh, I really like your new nom de guerre, but apparently you were so
>>>> anxious to use it, you forgot to post anything above it!!
>>
>>> Hugh, have you ever read or taught Marx or Engels? They had something
>>> to say about capitalism and feudalism. Any Bakunin? Trotsky? Lenin?
>>> Mao? Maybe Rosa Luxembourg? Or are these thinkers/dictators/socialists/
>>> idealists still banned in THE WHITE SOUTH?
>>
>> You're an embarrassment to morons.
>
> Afraid of reading?

Afraid of thinking?